Skip to main content
Log in

A game theoretic analysis of faculty competition and academic standards

  • Forum Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Grade inflation, particularly but not exclusively in higher education, is a serious concern of educators, educational policy-makers and researchers. It has been suggested that student evaluations of faculty are among its principal causes because students tend to give favorable evaluations to professors who give high grades, and that these evaluations are used by university administrators as part of the criteria for promotions, salary increases and similar faculty benefits. This explanation suggests that faculty members compete for favorable student evaluations. It can be generalized to state that faculty members cooperate and compete not only for favorable evaluations, but also for the enrollment of students in the courses they teach. The relevance of faculty cooperation and competition suggests that the Theory of Games could be a useful instrument to analyze the interactions among university professors. The object of this paper is to present a model based on these assumptions and to analyze the consequences that can be derived from it that are relevant for university policy decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hector Correa.

Additional information

1Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, and Resource Professor, Growth Dynamics University Institute, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Correa, H. A game theoretic analysis of faculty competition and academic standards. High Educ Policy 14, 175–182 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8733(01)00008-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8733(01)00008-3

Navigation